Thursday, December 23, 2004

Good for President Bush. He is going to renominate most of the judges whose nominations were filibustered to death in the last Congress.

Remember: A filibuster is just a procedural device to prevent nominees from reciving an up or down vote on the floor of the Senate. For example, Miguel Estrada, who withdrew after unbelievably unfair treatment by the Democrats, had at least 51 votes in the last Senate -- enough to win his judgeship. But he was never given the courtesy of that vote, because he was filibustered until he finally decided to "move on."

This story suggests -- as does much else -- that President Bush intends to be active in his second term. And that seems right. There's a lot that he didn't get to get done in his first term because of (1) 9/11 and (2) Democrats continued to raise the "legitimacy" issue, given the closeness of the election in 2000.

Now, everybody had better fasten their seatbelts. Bush II is a fighter jet, and it's taking off fast.

What offensive nonsense. These judges were not treated "unfairly." They were rejected because they are radical right-wingers who want to use the law to further the radical right-wing agenda. They are raving racists and ideologues committed to the turning back the clock on women's rights.

When Clinton was president, the Republicans did everything they could to block his VERY MODERATE appointments. The democrats, in contrast, have been extremely co-operative with Bush, approving almost two hundred of his picks, EVEN THOUGH BUSH WAS NOT LEGALLY ELECTED AND HAD NO RIGHT TO APPOINT ANYONE at least until January 20, 2005. The democrats confirmed the enormous majority of Bush's judges, balking only at 20 of the most extreme, fanatical right-wingers. This is the opposition's job! To keep us safe from the worst of what a crazed, radical, extremist, unelected "president" can do. The Senate is not supposed to be a rubber stamp.

The whole sordid situation of that strutting little bully intentionally provoking a confrontation by re-submitting these horrible, horrible people is just typical of his total lack of respect for the process and for anyone who doesn't agree with him. This is his idea of being a "Uniter" -- as he himself put it, he's "willing to work with anyone who agrees with my agenda." This foolish little boy has no better idea of statecraft than he does of history or anything else. What a complete disgrace to America and Americans.

I sure hope the democrats will stand up to this nonsense and send those nominations right to the trash can, using whatever parliamentary methods are available. But unfortunately, they will probably fold, hoping as usual for some sort of scraps from the bullies' table--and as usual, they won't get them. Pathetic.

I don't know what fantasy book Larner reads, but these judges were rejected because the only viewpoints the libs tolerate are their own. All the candidates have been "judged" to be among the best at what they do. It's typical for libs to assume that only those who think as they do are capable of keeping their personal beliefs to themselves when making decisions on the bench. More to the truth, the liberal judges do exactly the opposite. They don't interpret the Constitution, they inject what they want it to say. That's how we get decisions like Roe v Wade.

To say that these jugicial candidates are "raving racists and ideologues committed to turning back the clock on women's rights" is liberal scare tactics based on their own fear of losing what shouldn't have been granted in the first place. Strict interpretation of the Constitution would never have resulted in Roe v Wade type decisions.

During the Clinton years, I don't remember hearing of constant filibustering in place of up or down votes of Clinton appointees. Considering how loved Slick Willie was by the MSM, I'm sure I should have. If the GOP "did everything they could to block his VERY MODERATE appointments", they did so within the rules.

Please Larner, get help for the denial of Bush's LEGAL election. There was nothing illegal about it and it's been gone over ad nauseum. The Dems would never let go if it were not so. Saying it's a stolen election doesn't mean any more than sour grapes and it keeps the lie going so as to influence those like yourself who don't really pay attention. If anyone is disrespectful of the proccess, it's the Dem Senators who are using this unprecedented action to keep from having to vote. It's typical of their kind that without the ability to convince the voting population to keep them in power, they will stretch, ignore or circumvent the rules to get their way. You see it all the time. They can't get their way legislatively, so they try to get the courts to legislate for them, taking we the people out of the proccess entirely.

So Larner, read more, study, be less selfish, get professional help to see life as it is and quit whining about something that happened two elecions ago.

Read up about Clinton's judges and Bush's. Remember that, as I said, almost all of Bush's judges have sailed through nomination. The only ones that haven't are pure ideologues like Estrada or incompetent racists like Pickering, who has written extensively in defense of segregation and who once, in a total breach of ethics and professionalsim, called up a judge in a case that he (Pickering) wasn't involved in to demand a lenient sentence for a racist cross burner.

Republicans indeed did keep huge numbers of Clinton's quite conservative nominees from coming to a vote, through parliamentary maneuvers that blocked a vote or through the judges' home state senators blocking them (they have this privilege.) There was nothing remotely more straightforward about the Republicans' behavior than the Democrats, and whereas the Democrats blocked only a few of Bush's nominees because they are terrible nominees and people of terrible character, Republicans blocked as many of Clinton's highly qualified, apolitical nominees as they could, simply because they couldn't bear the thought of a Democrat exercising the powers that he--unlike Bush--was legally elected to. The filibuster, contrary to what you write, is a maneuver that is perfectly in accordance with the rules. What bugs me about your right-wing whining is the total hypocrisy of objecting when Democrats do it, since Republicans did it far more under Clinton.

When you raving conservatives say "strict constructionist" you mean hardcore conservative. It's a total dodge; conservatives just want the law to do what you want it to do. You guys don't want to tolerate any opposing viewpoints AT ALL; you will never be satisfied until you control 100% of the power and everyone parrots your anti-human viewpoints. Thanks to the near-total control of the media by the far right, you've been effectively brainwashed and made to blindly hate any rational disagreement; your positions are based on your need for belonging to the conservative tribe, not on any clear-eyed knowledge of history or social policy. That's why you come to pointless, pious blogs like this; to hear your prejudices confirmed. Sorry, at least one person here is going to call you on it.

As for the illegitimacy of that disgraceful little thug who occupies the white house, that utterly corrupt, utterly dishonest, utterly dishonorable, religious zealot fool of a little boy, you know perfectly well that he's illegitimate, whether you admit it to yourself or not. That's what's so infuriating; because you KNOW he stole it and you just don't care, so long as you agree with what he's doing. This is real contempt for democracy, and it enrages the half of the country who didn't vote for the creep. I'll prove to you that you know he's illegitimate; take my simple test posted at my web site, stopgwbush.us. The exact URL is stopgwbush.us/illegitimate.html.

By the way Estrada was rejected because he had no paper trail on which he could be evaluated, only a long history of far-right ravings. He did have some legal memos for judges for whom he had clerked, but he and the Republicans refused to release them to the committee. You call that qualified? What do you think Republicans would do in the reverse situation? I can guess, but we can't know for sure from the Clinton record, since Clinton NEVER sent the congress such an unqualified ideologue with such a scanty record.

That's right, I must be a "troll" -- How dare anyone post a DISAGREEMENT on a radical right-wing website?

Don't you guys ever get tired of hearing the same old retread nonsense from Rush and all his imitators again and again? I mean are you so insecure that you have to go looking on the internet for all your prejudices to be confirmed by identically-thinking people, and then you get upset when, very occasionally, that doesn't happen?